Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1347 (MAD)

P. S. Venkatesan & Others v. C. Vijayalakshmi

2003-08-26

M.CHOCKALINGAM

body2003
Judgment :- Despite notice, there is no representation on the side of the respondent. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials available. 2. The petitioners who were arrayed as A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7 respectively in a private complaint lodged by the respondent and taken cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Erode in C.C.No.257/2000 under Sec.138 read with Sec.141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, have sought for quashing of the said proceedings. 3. A perusal of the copy of the complaint placed in the hands of the Court would reveal that the first accused is a financial institution called R.B.F. Nidhi Ltd., through its Chairman and Director, while the other accused Nos.2 to 10 are shown as Directors of the said company; that the complainant along with her husband deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 4.9.98 under Pensioners Fixed Deposit Scheme in the branch office of the accused, situated in Erode; that deposit certificate was issued; that the said deposit was to be matured on 4.9.99; that the accused paid interest upto 21.8.99; that the accused also issued post-dated cheque for Rs.1,02,675/- in favour of the complainant to discharge the said liability, which would represent Rs.1,00,000/- towards the deposit amount and Rs.2,675/- towards the interest; that the cheque was drawn for the said amount on the Canara Bank, Park Road Erode Branch; and that on 6.12.99 when it was placed for encashment, the same was dishonoured with an endorsement "funds insufficient". Following a statutory notice and since the demand made thereunder was not met by the accused, the complaint was lodged by the complainant under the above provisions of the N.I. Act. On service of summons the petitioners have come forward with the instant petition to quash the proceedings. 4. The above factual aspects as to the business of the first accused company, wherein the other accused are the Directors, as to the deposit made by the complainant, as to the issuance of the cheque and as to the dishonour of the cheque are not in dispute. The learned Counsel for the petitioners raised two contentions. 4. The above factual aspects as to the business of the first accused company, wherein the other accused are the Directors, as to the deposit made by the complainant, as to the issuance of the cheque and as to the dishonour of the cheque are not in dispute. The learned Counsel for the petitioners raised two contentions. The first contention was that the Company Law Board in C.P.No.2/2000 in the matter of the company in question has passed an order on 12.1.2000 stating that all the cheques issued would be deemed to have been cancelled, and the recipients of those cheques be asked to return those cheques at the time of making payment of the first instalment as ordered therein. The second contention was that the first accused company was represented by the Chairman and Director, and the third and fourth petitioners before this Court are whole time Directors of the company receiving the salary, without any eligibility in respect of the profits or the dividends, and the other petitioners are the Directors; that while the company was represented by the Chairman and Director, which issued the cheque, the case could not be proceeded with against the other Directors, who are the petitioners before this Court. 5. The court is unable to see any merit in either of the contentions put forth by the petitioners' side. 6. Admittedly, the cheque in question was issued by the company, shown as the first accused, wherein all the other accused including the petitioners before this Court were Directors, on 6.12.1999, and the said cheque was placed for encashment on 16.12.99, and the same was dishonoured. Consequent upon the same, a statutory notice was issued, and since the demand made thereunder was not met by the company, a private complaint came to be lodged by the complainant, which is the subject matter before the lower Court. Now, what are all contended by the petitioners' side is that by an order dated 12.1.2000, the Company Law Board has passed an order stating that all the cheques issued already stand cancelled. Now, what are all contended by the petitioners' side is that by an order dated 12.1.2000, the Company Law Board has passed an order stating that all the cheques issued already stand cancelled. The Court is of the considered view that such an order passed by the Company Law Board on 12.1.2000 has nothing to do with the issue of the cheque on 6.12.99 placed before the Bank on 16.12.1999, since the said cheque has also been dishonoured and the cause of action has already arisen, which was the subject matter before the Court below. Hence, the order that was passed subsequently by the Company Law Board on 12.1.2000 cannot take away the rights already accrued in favour of the parties or the cause of action which culminated in the criminal proceedings now pending. 7. The second contention that the first accused is the company having its Chairman and Director equally has got to be rejected for the simple reason that on the date when the cheque was issued, all the petitioners before this Court were very well available as Directors of the company, and hence, this contention also cannot help the petitioners to get released from the clutches of the proceedings. Thus, the Court is unable to see any merit in the contentions put forth by the petitioners' side. 8. Therefore, this criminal original petition fails, and the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected Crl.M.P. is also dismissed.